Pharyngula

Posted by: Miguelito | April 29, 2006 10:21 AM

There is a reason for turning a one-hour talk into a two-hour talk. It cuts into Q&A time and he stands to be less embarassed by scientists asking critical questions.

Posted by: Bruce | April 29, 2006 11:03 AM

He warmed up the audience beforehand with a continuous display of 'witticisms' projected on the big screen. Things like "Why is the third hand on a watch called a second hand?" and "Where does the light go when it goes out?"

Steve Wright called. He wants his jokes back.

700 slides in two hours? I hope there weren't any epileptics in the house.

That's not a talk, it's an infomercial.

Posted by: kayigo | April 29, 2006 11:26 AM

You are evaluating this speech as though it were a lecture.
It wasn't one. It was a sermon. A really, really bad sermon. And from your description, he was preaching to the choir.

Posted by: sdanielmorgan | April 29, 2006 11:35 AM

Well, considering that Hovind has a court date coming up for tax evasion, and another court date coming up regarding the shutdown of his park, I'd say he won't have nearly so much time to go around spreading his mental pollution.

Posted by: Zeno | April 29, 2006 11:46 AM

Whoa! Close call! If I could read German better, I'd be dead now. And my dog smells terrible.

Speaking of dreadful jokes: I once sat all the way through a Duane Gish talk at a University of California campus. It was not so much a lecture as it was a stand-up routine. There were the sly asides that invited the true believers to laugh it up at the expense of those silly, silly evolutionists (they think they're smarter than God!), the anti-intellectual barbs for the consumption of jes' plain folks (why, some people are just educated till they have no sense left at all!), and the disjointed appeals to authority (scientists don't really know anything, except for the ones who formulated that second law of thermodynamics, which is sacrosanct [in our misinterpretation of it]). Any challenge during the Q&A session was turned aside with a quip, a recycled creationist talking point, and an oh-so-sad sympathetic shake of the head. Fortunately, when I saw Gish, Power Point hadn't been invented yet.

The next generation of "scientific" creationists will undoubtedly be spawned from the ranks of the sycophantic students who packed the lecture hall for Duane Gish at UC and for "Dr." Hovind at SCSU. The people at the Institute for Creation Research are cooking up a mentoring program to help such students earned advanced degrees at secular universities without blowing their cover as creationists. I cited the ICR announcement of its mentoring program in Undercover creationists for people who want details but aren't on the ICR mailing list (which, I confess, I am).

Posted by: Alpha | April 29, 2006 11:56 AM

This sounds exactly like how it went down at Virginia Tech. Like other commenters have said, Hovind knows his audience and isn't aiming at scientists. He's just reinforcing the beliefs of creationists and hoping to snag some people who don't know much about the issue with his version of "shock and awe".

Posted by: CL | April 29, 2006 12:27 PM

Why should SCSU feel shamefaced? If the student body is heavily creationist but otherwise qualified to be in school there, I don't see why SCSU is to blame. Rather, it's the Minnesota elementary and secondary school systems that should feel shame, since a biology course taken to fulfill a distribution requirement your last semester of college isn't going to do much to change ideas that persisted through twelve years of mandatory science classes.

Posted by: compass | April 29, 2006 12:50 PM

If the student body is heavily creationist but otherwise qualified to be in school there, I don't see why SCSU is to blame. Rather, it's the Minnesota elementary and secondary school systems that should feel shame, since a biology course taken to fulfill a distribution requirement your last semester of college isn't going to do much to change ideas that persisted through twelve years of mandatory science classes.

Ummm, bad news. Even the most rigorous K-12 science program is not going to shape everyone to "see the truth in evolution." There is this troublesome concept in human nature called "free will" that keeps screwing up all those efforts at programmins people to act and think in certain ways.

Posted by: Janet Cohen | April 29, 2006 1:28 PM

Dear Professor Myers,
SCSU is commonly known for bigotry among administration, professors and students. With no disrespect intended sir, I am surprised you would let your child attend a school with such a poor reputation.
BTW, I am a great admirer of yours and a U of MN Twin Cities Grad Student. Most sincerely, Janet

Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 29, 2006 1:47 PM

I don't think I could have sit through that. 700 slides really is the sign of an amateur, at least from a PowerPoint and talk-facilitation aspect. This guy sounds like someone who's found a way to make money off his ego by attaching it to people's emotions...oh wait, that's the entire republican party.

Anyhow, compass, please spare us the tortured persecuted Chrsitian crap. The church has been railing against "heretics" for millenia. In fact they go to such lengths to do so, I'm more apt to defend non-christian scientists do meaningful work than Christians that bash them for doing it. Hovind is an embarrassment to critical thinking worldwide. His protestations and sales tricks won't change that.

Also, a creationist telling a scientist, especially a biologist, just how things really are is a bit like me telling a surgeon he's not operating on someone's heart properly. I simply wouldn't even consider making such an gesture, because it would be so gallingly stupid.

And I ask who does Mr. Hovind think came up with this nebulous idea to put "lies" into biology books? They never do answer that question, although that's usually when they decry liberals or some other attention steerer...

Posted by: squeaky | April 29, 2006 1:54 PM

Well, PZ, I am embarrassed by Hovind. My brother gave me a 12 CD set of his to listen to about three years ago. Which I did (although I skimmed through much of it). I would hope that my first year geology students could refute the uninformed claims he makes about plate tectonics and the geologic column, etc. However, my brother has no science background since high school, which was for him, 20 years ago. Hovind's claims sound good to the uninformed because he packages his message in a slick, shiny wrapper. 700 slides--he knows not only his audience, but our culture. We are enticed by the visual in this culture, and he is playing to that. Plus he calls himself "Dr." even though his "doctorate" is in something like "Christian education" from a sort of mail-order college that doesn't have anything near an acredited degree program. Not only that, he claims to have taught science in high school, and he doesn't have anything past an undergrad degree in science, if he has that--I don't think he even has a science education degree, for that matter. Most people don't get past the "Dr." though, and assume he must know what he is talking about, even though his "doctorate" isn't in any branch of science. Since he is talking to people who don't have anything past an undergrad degree in science, if that, and since they WANT to believe what they are told the Bible says (although few of them take the time to sort it out for themselves), his uninformed rebuttals of science sound pretty darned good. Yes, he is preaching to the choir, he knows his audience, and he is a sheister to the Nth degree. And as a scientist who is also a Christian, I am embarrassed for my fellow Christians who can't ferret him out.

However, in their defense, they are ill-equipped to do so, and so is most American society. The average person has little understanding of science or how science works. Pop science sounds good. The average person assumes the person telling them about science has the authority to do so, and knows what they are talking about. Most people don't take the time to actually ferret out the truth of the matter (in science, or anything)

Hovind knows this and takes advantage of it. There is this overall attitude of "trust" of anyone who claims they are a Christian and uses the right Christian-speak. Couple that with his assumed authority because he has a "doctorate", and you have a master manipulator ready to fleece the flock.

To me, the biggest red flag he blatantly flies is his constant advertising of his material for sale, and why people can't see through that is beyond me. But then again, the entire American society is attracted to the bright shiny objects advertisers have to sell us. Why else do people prefer the big Hummers or fast cars to fuel efficient vehicles? Perhaps Christians are falling for this guy hook, line, and sinker, but it isn't a flaw only they hold in this society. It's a flaw most of us hold--the flaw of being attracted to celebrity, to the charismatic, to the fast talker, to the popular. Why else did the birth of Tom Cruise's baby make national headlines?

Posted by: lloydletta | April 29, 2006 2:01 PM

Ken Avidor and I drove up to SCSU for the Bachmann Amendment Horror Show. We didn't draw such a crowd unfortunately. We saw the Hovind poster - it was pretty over the top. I've got it posted over on DB.

http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com/2006/04/dump-bachmann-at-saint-cloud-state.html

Posted by: 386sx | April 29, 2006 3:07 PM

He will outlast them if nothing else.

Or cut their microphone.

He's a flashback to the days of snake-oil salesmen.

I hadn't realized they weren't still around.

Posted by: squeaky | April 29, 2006 3:35 PM

Good points, impatientpatient. You echo my points above. An important thing to realize, though, is that it is not just Christians who fall for this--we all do to some degree or another, even those of us who think we are immune. A friend of mine pointed this out to me, and I, who pride myself in not being taken in by the trappings of this society (live simply so that others may simply live, sort of thing) boldly claimed I don't fall for the tactics of advertisers. Then I was honest with myself, and I remembered a recent e-mail I had received from Amazon.com telling me of books they knew I would be interested in from my past buying practices. Danged if I didn't buy a couple of them! We can call the people who fall for Hovind's crap ignorant fools, but we're all susceptible to snake oil salesmen and advertisement--it just depends on the salesman and what our vulnerabilities are. Capitalism runs quite well on these vulnerabilities. Nothing has changed since Barnums' "Sucker born every minute" statement. And we're all suckers at some point or another, but not all for the same reasons.

Posted by: IAMB | April 29, 2006 5:11 PM

Heh... you know, PZ, surviving my Hovind overdose wasn't ever really an issue. It's the unpleasant side-effects that bother me.

For starters, there's that pesky thousand yard stare that just won't seem to go away...

Posted by: 386sx | April 29, 2006 8:00 PM

He's a flashback to the days of snake-oil salesmen.

Oh, the snake oil people are still around:

The website doesn't tell us that the eight are all supporters of intelligent design led by the ID Network's John Calvert and William Harris.

The FAQ distributed at the candidate forum is prominently reproduced on the Kansas Science 2005 site in PDF.

Here's one of the FAQs and the answer:

Q: Do the changes seek to criticize evolution to advance religion?
A: No. They seek to eliminate rather than advance a religious bias that permeated the old standards.

Presumably the religious bias they seek to eliminate is the religious bias that is biased against making changes that seek to criticize evolution to advance religion. So technically, if you stop to think about it, I guess they're not really lying about it too much.

Posted by: Grumpy | April 29, 2006 8:51 PM

Bruce: "Steve Wright called. He wants his jokes back."

Reminds me of George Carlin, actually. Carlin coasted on such material for years, and he's still considered a comedy legend.

Either that, or Gallagher. Did Hovind smash any fruit during his presentation??

Posted by: Keanus | April 29, 2006 9:17 PM

I too have always been baffled by the reluctance of Christians to speak out openly against the fraudulent, self-serving snake-oil salesmanship of people like Hovind. Privately they condemn him, but publicly they are adverse to saying anything negative. It's kind of like if he's Christian, even a repulsive one, don't say anything if you can't say something nice. I'd much prefer that Christians would put on the car bumper the sticker that says "The Christian Right is Neither." Were I Christian I've have them on both ends of the car!

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 29, 2006 10:10 PM

What color were his big flooy shoes and foam nose?

Posted by: SkookumPlanet | April 29, 2006 10:42 PM

PZ
Andy Groves is correct about audiences. His "first rule of public speaking: Know Your Audience," is the first rule in all public communications, such as mass media, political campaign speeches, advertising, etc. Did Hovind's audience feel demeaned? You wouldn't go before that crowd and give the talk you gave to an annual scientific conference. Do that and the audience tunes out and hears nothing. "Communicators" who ignore audience needs are egotistical failures.

As a teacher you tailor material to audience constantly. But in college students you have a self-motivated audience, there to work, more or less. With an audience allergic to thinking, or distracted by other priorities, etc., it's a different equation if audience effect, rather than self-satisfaction, is the goal. You like entertaining science speakers but Pharyngula's tastes would be a foreign language to most in that hall.

SBers often rif on how people SHOULD process information, the arguments and persuasion that SHOULD work on them. Demeaning the public when it's unpersuaded and uninformed by such "shoulds" actually is self-demeaning, revealing an analysis highly anectodal, ignorant, and unscientific. Attitude formation and change, emotional bias filters in communication, etc. is rarely discussed beyond Cognitive Daily. Let me turn to a celebrity as my analogy, Homer Simpson, scientist. "Lousy, stupid experiment turned out wrong. Marge! Come in here and explain to this experiment what it's supposed to do. [whispered aside to experiment] And if you know what's good for you, you little... "

Squeaky makes the reality in the good ol' U.S. of A. clear. Twice. One quibble which is there has been change since Barnum's day -- the hucksters are getting much more sophisticated and now use science. See Seed "News Items" column straight below, "Study Finds a Mechanism for Decision-Making" for one of many examples.

"Why else did the birth of Tom Cruise's baby make national headlines?" I'll also add that the meta-manipulation going on escapes even the most observant. Our current "celebrity culture" phenomenon is not a natural one, but rather one carefully constructed over many decades.

As has been the rise of the right. High stakes politics is almost such these days. On a Chris Mooney topic I discussed the sophisticated psychomarketing technique Dub and Vee-Dub used, proximity soundbites to sell Americans on invading Iraq. As snakeoily as it gets. Or snakeyoily.

And impatientpatient always has insights [for me, at least] about how the minds in that audience work.Perhaps impatientpatient will check me on the following.

Rey Fox, not money, but with irrefutable "logic", power. Scientists, who may soon be demonized as dishonest, anti-Christian, and anti-American, gain the obvious, as dupes, for Satan. Spreading nationwide to ID footsoldiers, it may get quite personal and may tar scientists, academics, teachers, etc., in general, if useful for a broader sociopolitical agenda. The right lies about science at will and feeds their audience shovelfuls of false witness. Why would they stop?

compass. PZ's doing his job, which he does very well -- being a provocateur. You're roughly right but, like "echo chamber sycophants" are a bit over the top. Staying "in subject", you're at PZ's Revival Meeting, with appropriate content and emotions. It can get condescending and patronizing as those crowded into the tent would probably agree. There's even speaking in tongues -- or is that Latin?

Posted by: compass | April 29, 2006 11:58 PM

Please don't try to tell me that he's a fringe minority: I've been to a couple of creationist affairs in St Cloud and Minneapolis, and we're talking about packed houses there. So get off your butt, compass, and oppose the usurpers.

There are plenty of nutball Protestant ministers selling spiritual whipped cream instead of proper meat. They aren't worth the energy. Neither is Hovind. At least he is intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a possibility of a God. Agnostics posing as atheists that haven't worked out the logic correctly (such as yourself) are more of a concern in a world that is convinced that the third act of the mind alone suffices for divining truth.

Though heaven knows tilting at the Pharyngula/PZ windmill is a lonely, damned near fruitless endeavor in this sycophant-infested echo chamber.

I've never understood what Christians like compass mean by "free will", anyway, since apparently if you actually use it to think anything other than what you're told to believe, God sends you to hell for that.

So sadly wrong it almost isn't worth the response, but I'll try.

God doesn't send people to hell, Raven. They choose to go all on their lonesome.

Posted by: Harrison | April 30, 2006 12:37 AM

"Though heaven knows tilting at the Pharyngula/PZ windmill is a lonely, damned near fruitless endeavor in this sycophant-infested echo chamber."

My goodness, Compass, what a martyr complex! Climb down off that cross; we need the wood!

You assume a "tone" of exasperated moral superiority, question the integrity of PZ and nearly all the posters, and then act wounded when people get annoyed and jab back at you.

Tell me, why do you bother with us heathens? We're really not worth all this time and effort, are we? Gosh, we sure are lucky to have you to kick around...

Posted by: George Cauldron | April 30, 2006 1:35 AM

Though heaven knows tilting at the Pharyngula/PZ windmill is a lonely, damned near fruitless endeavor in this sycophant-infested echo chamber.

Yup. Coming here every day and insulting the liberals must take a lot out of poor Compass.

Funny thing, tho, no one's paying him or forcing him, and he sure seems to enjoy it.

Posted by: G. Tingey | April 30, 2006 4:57 AM

You may feel sorry for them, but. .....

Lets remember, most christiuans are blackmail victims.
Christianity, like islam, and all other religions is blackmail - blackmail of a "better life" & fear of punishment from the religious, if they have political or social power.

Yesterday, I was stopped by a christian as I was walkin home, and it was a female.
So I pointed out that women have no place pushing anythiug in christianity.
Even though it's all in the bible, I just got the mindless "god loves you/god bless you/ jesus will save you" mantra, until I had to walk away before I knocked her down.

Why do they do it?
They don't even follow their own teachings.
There's anothe really fundie church here, and I've just seen women wearing RED going to church .....

As for the previous poster, who said "all christians arn't like Hovind" - well, what are you going to DO about it then?
Put up, or shut up, and be classified with Hovind.
Caliming "Oh he/they are not PROPER christians/muslims/communists" really will not wash, unless you take some steps.
Otherwise, you are automatically going to be classed along with those already known to be brain-dead.

Posted by: John M Price | April 30, 2006 3:54 PM

I, too, have been shunned and by one of my closest friends from HS. He even figured prominently in a 'life review' as a criminal, havng shot me, decided to put the gun to the back of my head. (That is, BTW, a real traumatic experience.) I need to tell him this before I am dead.

As to feeling sorry for them, I am not sure why? They live a fact free life, and do not realize just how much atheism is involved in their living (e.g., car repair, surgery - why they praise god and sue the surgeons is still beyond me, fixing the TV and so forth). They really are using denial and avoiding cognitive dissonence. I'd feel sorry for them if they were aware of the problems they have, but from what I see, there is no suffering going on here, just basic blindness to the real world. No need to really feel sorry, save for the waste of minds we are seeing.

Posted by: Stanton | May 1, 2006 12:24 AM

"After sitting through Hovind's talk, I have seen the light."
That reminds me of a quote from Homer Simpson...
"I see the light! It burns!"

Really, I'm surprised that Mr Hovind is still toddling about with his blasphemously awful, if not plain blasphemous seminals...
Is he out on bail before he has to explain to the court why he continues to use his faith as an aegis for his money?

Posted by: Sawyer | May 1, 2006 9:11 PM

And I give my apologies to those that are supporting or at least respecting Hovind for lumping you together with everyone else

Posted by: Roger | July 15, 2006 3:57 PM

PZ Myers clearly has his limitations of reasoning and concentration due to his chosen ancestry.

Just because he could not keep up with the many slides presented, is no fault of Hovind. Seems like the larger audiance had no trouble in this field. ( I would suspect they have a different origin to Myers)

Just as Myers & co.expect payment for their material, so does Hovind for his. I would rather pay Hovind for his

Posted by: Caledonian | October 27, 2006 9:31 AM

Yes, clearly Myers must list, in alphabetical order, the names of the places of 85% of the world where the column order is conserved. Only this will refute the profound wisdom and insight of Dr. Hovind, Director of Internet Prognostication, , Deliberator of Exotic Endogamy, and Doctor of Occipital Orientation.

Posted by: Caledonian | October 28, 2006 6:29 PM

Did you contact Caledonian, and ask him to reply on your behalf, to save you the embarassment?

Ah ha HA HA HAHA HAHAHA! I bet PZ would rather drive red-hot forks through both his eyes than contact me with a request for anything. In case you haven't noticed, there's a sidebar where recent posts are linked. When people visit the site, they can see the latest new posts, even if the thread they're in are very old.

Combined with the principle that particularly stupid posts are likely to receive mocking responses... and voila! QED! Eureka! Vesica piscis! Umlaut! Marklar marklar! So it is demonstrated...

Posted by: Steve_C | July 20, 2007 2:14 PM

Is this guy serious???

He's gotta be pulling our leg.

Yeah, PZ is LYING about his sire traffic.

What an a-hole.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 20, 2007 2:39 PM

He didn't mention his hero doing time in the Federal Prison.

I wonder why that is.

Posted by: Zarquon | July 21, 2007 8:37 AM

It's not as if yours and Hovind's lies deserve anything other than mocking.

Posted by: Roger | July 21, 2007 6:40 PM

Thanks PZ....

I do have a few questions, and I trust that you can give an answer to them...

My first question to you is whether evolution is a theory, or a fact?

(Hovind claims it is a theory - not a fact.)

Posted by: Roger | July 21, 2007 7:24 PM

Lepht, thanks for the civility in your response to my first question to PZ.

My second question to PZ is what stumbling block does this theory have, preventing it from being a fact.

Posted by: Roger | July 21, 2007 8:02 PM

PZ, Lepht has written "the fact that it is a theory does not mean...."

Now to me this can only be interpreted that it is a theory.

So if nothing prevents it from being a fact, why do you attempt to classify it as fact and theory?

Now my third question is related to another claim by Hovind that for this theory to be plausible, spontaneous life would have had to spring from a rock. Hovind claims that this evidence has not been found or duplicated. Was Hovind lying, or does such evidence exist?

Posted by: Lepht | July 21, 2007 8:11 PM

Roger, i know you're expecting replies from just PeeZed, but this galls me. i told you.

i'll be clearer: evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. in the context of science, "fact" and "theory" mean the exact same thing.

Lepht

Posted by: Roger | July 21, 2007 8:28 PM

Thanks Lepht, I have no problem with you answering my questions if PZ does not. In fact I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

So would I be correct to understand that a theory in scientific terms does not necessarily mean that it has to be proven to become classed as a scientific fact?

Posted by: MartinM | July 21, 2007 8:35 PM

So would I be correct to understand that a theory in scientific terms does not necessarily mean that it has to be proven to become classed as a scientific fact?

Right, theory is not a lesser classification than fact. This is why we talk of atomic theory, or germ theory. Doesn't mean that the existence of atoms and germs is not proven. Theories are broad, powerful explanatory frameworks; you can't boil them down to a single statement of fact.

Posted by: Roger | July 21, 2007 8:49 PM

Gentlemen, many thanks for your time and input on this topic - it certainly is engrossing, but I must confess that I am far from convinced.

Lepht, thank you especially for the manner in which you have handled this subject with me. I do appreciate your input, and thanks for your offer to discuss these topics further with me. Unfortunately I am not able to pop in to visit, as I live in Africa....but we can continue if you like through this site. I do have more questions to ask, but it is now almost 3 o'clock in the morning here.....my bed is calling.

Chow for now

Posted by: Roger | July 22, 2007 8:39 AM

Good day to you gentleman, I trust you folk are well there in the US of A

Just to fill you in, I went to the dictionary to get some definitions on theory, fact, & hypothesis.

Perhaps my dictionary is out of date (mid 70's), but it ties up with my understanding that a theory is a speculation, as opposed to proof. Likewise this dictionary defines a hypothesis as a theory to be proved or disproved by reference to facts. This dictionary defines a fact as a deed or anything done, known to have happened, or to be true.(Chambers's Etymological English Dictionary)

In terms of these definitions would my understanding be incorrect to claim, that without proof, a theory remains just a theory, and cannot be classed as a fact?

Perhaps PZ would then permit us to move on....

Posted by: Roger | July 22, 2007 9:33 AM

PZ, I was of the opinion that you would permit me the use of reference books, other than those prescribed by yourself, to verify this hypothesis. A dictionary has always been a useful tool for me to get understanding.

It comes as a surprise to me that scientists have a very different dictionary to those of the layman, to whom they are trying to sell a theory as fact.

Be that as it may, are you now willing to permit a response to my questions, from your team?

Posted by: Lepht | July 23, 2007 7:48 AM

ah yes, and i almost forgot; by your logic, if evolution is "just a theory" even after science has found evidence for it, no evidence against it, and accepted it as fact...

... where does that leave the hypothesis with no evidence, plenty of counterevidence and zero real scientists positing it, creationism?

L

Posted by: Stanton | July 23, 2007 8:48 AM

Anybody notice how Roger has never bothered to present one of Mr Hovind's "scientific" claims in order to defend it?
My guess is that he's just another Christian troll who's decided to come here with the sole purpose to antagonize Prof Myers.

Posted by: Lepht | July 23, 2007 9:52 AM

okay, i call time's up.

Roger, if you ever do decide to come back here, and you're willing to actually debate properly and listen to what we're saying instead of repeating "Just a theory! Just a theory! Just a theory!" to yourself, i'll happily host an entire written one on the cases for and against evolution as a fact over at my place.

i repeat once again that as i'm a techhead, my place is a blog, not a house, and its doors are open to everyone.

i hope to actually hear from you, and not to see another creationist run off after he can't convince the satanic atheists that the sky-daddy's watching them.

Lepht

Posted by: Roger | July 23, 2007 1:01 PM

Hi Guys, Ok I just got some of your responses on behalf of PZ.

You guys seem to be quite annoyed, and I can only imagine it to be because I have not readily bought into this theory. My dictionary defines "gullible" as easily deceived

At no time have I tried to convert any of you guys to creationism.

It would have been quite refreshing if you could have handled my questions with courtesy and a little dignity....
the insults, ridiculing, giggling and barking do not really further your cause.

To bring you folk up to speed, I did watch a copy of Hovind's DVD on the theory that you support so zealously.
I went onto the net and found your site where PZ complained that he could not keep up with the presentation given by Hovind. It was just too much for him to take in.

My feeling was that if PZ did not like the message, it was rather immature (the scientist) of him to attack the messenger.

Further I felt that Hovind had made some very very interesting observations, and it was my intention to investigate these claims.

Sadly, I find that the responses to my questions to this site has been insulting.

To evaluate this theory, in the light of Hovind's DVD, it was my intention to ask a number of questions to which I anticipated some honest answers from PZ, or you, his team.

PZ and yourselves have confirmed that a theory is actually a fact. My, and many non-scientific people believe a theory is only a theory. Some theories of course will have supporting evidence to lead you to believe that the theory is correct, and a fact. But then we also have theories which do not have the evidence to support it.

This is why it is vital for theories to be tested, accepted or rejected.

Now some people are so zealous to validate a theory that they will even stoop to falsify findings to prove their theory as a fact. They would have no difficulty in modifying a find to fit a theory.... file a little here, scrape a little there, burn a bit. Perhaps this has even taken place in the field that you guys work. I'm bot sure.
But it all boils down to a theory having to be tested.

Now the not-easily-deceived actually should be afforded that opportunity to test this theory.....and a theory is still only a theory until it has been tested,in my books.
A M.O. of ridicule, giggling, insults, etc. is actually counter-productive, and reflects a mentality of school children.

Lepht, I was impressed with your openess and willingness to chat when we last spoke, but regrettably I find that from your last responses you have been sucked back into the pack of laughing hyennas, and giggling schoolboys. This is unfortunate.

Just take a look at PZ's comments....."a theory is believed to be true, so it is a fact".....what nonsense ... only the gullible will buy that. No wonder we find evidence of scientists rigging the show....cut a little, file a little, bend a little...just so it fits.

At no stage have I tried to run away...I have nothing to run from....yet my distinct feeling has been that PZ and you, his team of students would like nothing more.

It should not have slipped your notice how quickly PZ stopped you responding to my questions, and it certainly did not escape my attention how readily you guys obeyed....except for the flurry of expected insults , of course.

Perhaps this is the only weapon of defence you have to prop up this untested theory

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 23, 2007 1:18 PM

"But then we also have theories which do not have the evidence to support it."

If there wasn't EVIDENCE, then it wouldn't be a proper THEORY. This sentence quite clearly shows to me that you have no willingness to discuss this in any useful way. The commenters here have taken great pains to define "theory" and "fact" to you, and you, quite willingly, just don't get it.

But we seem to agree that ideas, hypotheses, what-have-you, should be backed up by evidence. So lay it on us. Let's hear what Mr. Hovind offers as evidence for his supposed theory. Otherwise, you're just wasting our time. Playing the victim card won't get you anywhere, because we're all familiar with the tactic of provoking the blog regulars into getting testy and then cherry-picking the comments that disturb you the most and whining about how mean everyone is.

Posted by: Roger | July 23, 2007 2:14 PM

Ohhh, Ok I do get it....evolution with viruses is true, and that is a fact..That I do believe...and I have seen how influenza keeps changing.....sorry I missed that point you were trying to make.

The evolution that I was thinking of was the theory that you came from the ape species. That part I will not buy into, and that you cannot prove to me, without evidence

Glad you back Lepht.

On the doctoring of evidence question I will need to do some research. I can recall a prominent scientist being called to task on that topic. It was on television here a while back, so I will have to hunt for that info for you.

Posted by: Roger | July 23, 2007 4:03 PM

Lepht, I told you I would get back to you....the case I spoke of was well documented, and I need to do some research to get the details. This was a while back, and I need to get a handle on it. I will also scour the net for this.

In addidtion I will get hold of a paleontologist(spelling?) mate of mine regarding this case. He is aware of the details. I can recall the guy in question being stripped of all his degrees, or whatever, from the university. It was quite a scandal and disgrace.

Refer back to my note...I said I was not sure if it was in your field. I will get the info. So no need for offence, Sport.

Just to give you some more info on this paleontologist mate of mine...we hold discussions on this theory whenever he pops into my home ( a house, not a blog)and we can freely discuss evolution and creationism with each other. We are not attempting to convert each other... we discuss the different viewpoints, evidences, etc. We can disagree on some issues, but we remain friends.
Now his take on all this is that there is a mountain of evidence to support your theory, but he personally cannot rule out the theory of creationism.

So while perhaps neither side can prove their theory, outright, would it be wise to discount and ridicule the other?

Would it be correct to denounce creationism as a lie, then
state that just because a scientist was caught cheating does not mean that evolution is not true?

We chat again, and I will get back to you with the evidence you seek. As I said before, it may not be from your discipline, so don't lose any sleep over it, or take offence.

Posted by: Lepht | July 23, 2007 4:20 PM

Stanton, all i can say is that for once i am glad to have the amount of medical problems i do.

it means that this whole time i've been so sedated that you're only seeing about a tenth of how pissed off i'd be without the analgesics, thus enabling me to carry on with this discussion.

Roger, i'm waiting for evidence. not anecdotes, not your mate's opinions - evidence. creationism, i must warn you, has none so far.

Lepht
(opiated)

Posted by: Roger | July 23, 2007 4:32 PM

Good grief Lepht, do you expect me to get this evidence for you right now....hell, it has taken you over a 150 years to come up with yours!!!! and you still cannot prove it....do you have any reason not to be reasonable?

Posted by: Lepht | July 23, 2007 4:38 PM

Roger, Stanton is worrying that you'll take my request for evidence as an insult and, feeling yourself to have been slighted, not come up with any.

and actually, yes, i do expect speedy delivery. if the evidence exists, it will be publicised, and on the Net, probably in a scientific journal. so you should be able to dig it out pretty quickly.

i am reasonable. that is why i do not believe things without evidence.

Lepht

Posted by: Roger | July 23, 2007 4:51 PM

Excellent point you make there Sport
But as I said I try not to convert you
and I attempt not to prove creationism
I do have difficulty getting you to prove your theory...
We just cannot get passed this stumbling block
Yet you will have me believe an unprovable theory as a fact
Sorry...I cannot do that

Posted by: Stanton | July 23, 2007 5:03 PM

Good grief Lepht, do you expect me to get this evidence for you right now....hell, it has taken you over a 150 years to come up with yours!!!! and you still cannot prove it....do you have any reason not to be reasonable?

And what evidence have scientific creationists like Kent Hovind have brought forth in support of Creationism? Oh, wait, he never brought anything up besides lies and incoherent diatribes.

It's gross, willful ignorance like yours that makes me routinely disgusted with Creationists.

Posted by: Stanton | July 23, 2007 5:10 PM

You do know about DNA don't you? Heard of speciation?

Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2007 5:18 PM

You need to quit while you're behind.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2007 5:28 PM

Most creationsits do. Most people who would bother to listen to Hovind do.

So you're a non religious creationist? Weird.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 23, 2007 6:39 PM

We don't come from apes. We're descended from a common ancestor.

There's a difference.

We are primates though. It's a classification in science. Try researching our section of the evolutionary tree.

Wouldit hurt these people to even WIKI the topics?

Posted by: Kent Hovind | July 23, 2007 7:36 PM

Hovind pimps all professors that debate him! makes em look like asses! This entire site is a bunch of queers!

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | July 23, 2007 8:22 PM

Well, given the most recent definition for Hominidae, we are apes, Great Apes.

If you dispute that chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans are in the biological family Hominidae, separating them into the Pongidae as was done in the past, then the response is, we are descended from a common ancestor to ourselves and apes. In any case the lot of us are all primates.

This wouldn't be that infamous "If we are descended from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" favourite of the creationists, would it?

Posted by: P-W | July 24, 2007 11:05 AM

Although the above review was extremely negative, there was enough "honest" information in the review to make me wish I had been there and had been able to enjoy the solid data the man presented! It is those who cannot present rational and reasonable and convincing scientific counterpoints who are forced to resign themselves to "moaning" over the powerful data which exposes the Darwinian deception.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2007 11:26 AM

Roger, you're a nonreligious creationist?

P-W, honest information from Hovind? What are you smoking?

Posted by: MartinM | July 24, 2007 11:50 AM

It is those who cannot present rational and reasonable and convincing scientific counterpoints who are forced to resign themselves to "moaning" over the powerful data which exposes the Darwinian deception.

What data's that, then? Got anything of substance, or are you just here to troll?

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 24, 2007 1:09 PM

You know, maybe my previous questions were just too hard to answer.

I'll try again, with one question, and I'll keep it very short.

Roger, what do you think "evolution" means?

Posted by: the hat | July 24, 2007 1:23 PM

Several points:
1. Not all Christians are idiots. Many are scientists, who can hold a scientific viewpoint and a spiritual faith without confusing the two and without their heads exploding.
2. Hovind confuses the two. Would that his head would explode.
3. Powerpoint is one of the single most effective tools for destroying thought. I refer you all to the Powerpoint Gettysburg Address, and related links. Investigations of space shuttle disasters have shown that the use of Powerpoint by engineers and administrators may have contributed to a paucity of independent thought that could have identified problems before they became critical.
4. Stupidity is our one inexhaustible resource. If only we could devise a way to run a motor on it, our energy problems would be solved forever.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2007 2:46 PM

Oh. You're being sarcastic. I get it.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2007 2:52 PM

Hovind doesn't present data. He presents fiction and promotes ignorance.

We don't need to discredit the existence of a creator. There's no evidence for one.

Hovind is a conman and a liar.

Posted by: P-W | July 24, 2007 2:57 PM

We don't need to discredit the existence of a creator. There's no evidence for one.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2007 02:52 PM

Evidence for the existence of a Creator is found in the existence of order and design and laws in the universe.

Design indicates a Designer, order indicates an Organizer, and laws inidicate a Lawgiver.

Posted by: P-W | July 24, 2007 3:03 PM

You're blunt like a hammer, you're not the sharpest tool in the drawer either.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2007 02:58 PM

Evidence for the existence of a Creator is found in the existence of order and design and laws in the universe.

Design indicates a Designer, order indicates an Organizer, and laws inidicate a Lawgiver.

Posted by: P-W | July 24, 2007 02:57 PM

By the way, this evidence for a Creator (the Watchmaker scenario), is based on inductive logic, which is part of the scientific method.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 24, 2007 3:04 PM

Evidence for the existence of a Creator is found in the existence of order and design and laws in the universe.

Nonsense. Natural order and natural laws exist. They don't prove anything outside of themselves. And the combination of those order and laws give the emergent appearance of design - without requiring an external designer.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2007 3:13 PM

Superstitious people are funny.

Creationists seem to be not to bright. God must love them less.

Posted by: P-W | July 24, 2007 3:19 PM

Heck, why do you even need any more "solid data"? You have a set of glib truisms! By the way, do you have any evidence of who that designer is, and how he operates? Or is that the sort of thing we're not supposed to ask?

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 24, 2007 03:04 PM

I find substantial evidence of that Designer in nature: in natural laws, design, and order throughout the fabric of the universe. Such complex order and design cannot even be found in the technology of man!

Coincidentally, the evidence of the Designer I find in nature is harmonious with the Creator I find described in the Bible.

Posted by: Roger | July 24, 2007 3:21 PM

P-W, do not be put off by these silly comments they throw at anyone that does not agree with them.

As Fox said earlier, this is a site devoted to Hovind....Hovind slays them and their unproved theory.

But then Fox makes the admission that they (the scientists)are making money out of this.......

Posted by: P-W | July 24, 2007 3:29 PM

A watch also implies a tooler, a glass maker, a jeweler and various other suppliers of what it takes to make a watch.

How many gods are there anyway?

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2007 03:17 PM

I believe it was Aristotle who hypothesized the existence of many "gods" through inductive logic as applied to the universe. But there are alternative explanations to consider.

The existence of "evil" in the universe suggests inductively that the Bible's "Satan" may actually exist. It is possible to inductively recognize good and evil forces in the universe by the observation of nature. The good forces are harmonious with the Bible's explanation of a Triune God who is a plural unity, hence "one" as a family is "one." Angels would align with that Designer, and fallen angels (demons) would align with the evil antagonist (Satan). The Bible's world view appears to me to agree with observable nature.

Posted by: Owmirror | July 24, 2007 3:36 PM

I believe it was Aristotle who hypothesized the existence of many "gods" through inductive logic as applied to the universe. But there are alternative explanations to consider.

Like the parsimonious explanation that unobserved gods need not be hypothesized?

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 24, 2007 3:44 PM

"Coincidentally, the evidence of the Designer I find in nature is harmonious with the Creator I find described in the Bible."

Ah yes, coincidence. Has nothing to do with the religion in which you were raised, nope.

Oh, and Roger, I gave you some homework. Hop to it.

Posted by: P-W | July 24, 2007 3:52 PM

"Coincidentally, the evidence of the Designer I find in nature is harmonious with the Creator I find described in the Bible."

Ah yes, coincidence. Has nothing to do with the religion in which you were raised, nope.

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 24, 2007 03:44 PM

You are correct that "coincidentally" may be a poorly chosen word. After all, if we are using inductive logic as a scientific method, the more general assumptions arrived at must be verifiable. The Bible verifies the general assumptions I have arrived at from my observations of nature, and adds much more than my feeble self is able to intellectually arrive at alone.

Posted by: Bob | July 24, 2007 3:59 PM

There is a reason for touting the tapes during these things: the creationists have to pay their own way with only tapes or donations supporting their research and expenses. The so called "real" scientists get their way paid for by the taxpayers.

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 24, 2007 4:03 PM

It's just as well. I knew you had absolutely no intention of learning anything.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 24, 2007 4:08 PM

Roger is only pretending not to be religious. I don't know why he doesn't accept the hindu version of creation or the Scientologist's verion if he doesn't have a preference.

Posted by: MartinM | July 24, 2007 4:13 PM

The data presented by Hovind, by Creationists, and material written by recognized scientists and intellectual investigators which is available in Christian bookstores everywhere, who are not out to discredit the existence of a Creator.

I was looking for something a little more specific.

And what exactly do you make of the many Christian scientists who accept mainstream science?

Posted by: MartinM | July 24, 2007 4:59 PM

Hovind isn't a scientist at all. He has no scientific training, does no scientific research, and is ignorance of even the most basic principles and methodologies of science.

Posted by: P-W | July 24, 2007 5:39 PM

All that matters is the observations; those things that the authors report on. Are they detailed and rigorous? Are they substantive? Are they reproducible? Do they hold up given later research?

No. Either the observations are trivial and vague, or they are unfalsifiable, or they are obviously, evidently, false.

Posted by: Owlmirror

The Bible has endured criticism for centuries and milleniums because it can be tested, examined, and is consistently being verified by archaeology as to its historicity, as well as in the fact that macroevolution is being falsified by archaeology as well.

Posted by: Brownian | July 24, 2007 5:54 PM

Really P-W? You have a cud-chewing rabbit? (Leviticus 11:6.)

Tested.
Examined.
Found wrong.

I suppose you'll have to become a Hindu then. The Vedas have endured criticism for more millenia than the bible.

You'd better hurry up and convert. The festival of Guru Poornima happens this Sunday.

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 24, 2007 6:00 PM

"macroevolution is being falsified by archaeology as well."

Archaeology is the study of human culture from historical times. You see why we're disinclined to take your "scholarship" seriously?

Posted by: Science Avenger | July 24, 2007 7:17 PM

P.W. said: By the way, this evidence for a Creator (the Watchmaker scenario), is based on inductive logic, which is part of the scientific method.

Yes, but the problem is that is the only first step. Science goes beyond that to falsifiable testing, whereas religions and pseudoscience like ID/creationism remain in the speculative realm. I have a longer explanation of this here.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 24, 2007 7:33 PM

I seem to recall reading a quote by Darwin in which he expressed extreme concern over the fact that the fossil record failed to record the multitudes of "transitional forms" he postulated. He seemed to believe that the fossil record could prove his theory of macroevolution wrong.

No. Even if not a single transitional fossil had ever been found, it would not have "disproved" the theory.

However, transitional fossils have been found, and they provide excellent supporting evidence for evolution - along with all of the other evidence of the biological similarities between related species.

To this date I am unaware of any fossil transitional forms capable of verifying Darwin's theory.

You're arguing from ignorance again. There are many transitional fossils — of fish that are evidently transitional to amphibians; of dinosaurs that are evidently transitional to birds; of apes and hominids that are evidently transitional to man.

This is a fuller explanation; Please read carefully:

Use and Abuse of the Fossil Record, pt1

Use and Abuse of the Fossil Record, pt2

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 24, 2007 7:38 PM

The flaw in your thesis is in assuming the area of "testability" is always the three or four dimensions with which we are most familiar.

And you have evidence of other dimensions?

If the dimension for testability is in a realm with which science is unfamiliar (the spiritual realm), your thesis fails in its criticism because it fails to include the dimension of the spirit.

The dimension of "spirit" itself is untestable, which is why it is, quite properly, rejected by science.

I'm not even sure that "spirit" is meaningful. Can you even define "spirit" coherently?

Posted by: P-W | July 24, 2007 7:55 PM

The dimension of "spirit" itself is untestable, which is why it is, quite properly, rejected by science.

I'm not even sure that "spirit" is meaningful. Can you even define "spirit" coherently?

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 24, 2007 07:38 PM

Science has recently invaded the realm of the soul (psyche), which is the non-material area of the mind, with its most recent attempts in psychology, a baby science.

The spirit is a non-material realm which is subjectively real to the individual, but which is accessible by the soul (psyche). Since psychology is a baby science with multitudes of theories not holding a consensus, it is understandable that universal opinions have not been formed in the area of psychology. Emotions like love, hate, joy, grief, and others are not testable in the three or four dimensions physical science attempts to understand, and they cannot be measured or handled, yet we know they are as real as microwaves. Science is still a baby, and attempting to think the Designer's thoughts after Him.

The spiritual realm is evidenced by the material realm, just as the soul is evidenced by the emotions, speech and actions of the individual.

If you are skeptical of a spiritual realm, may I suggest you begin investigating string theory?

Posted by: JimV | July 24, 2007 9:08 PM

P-W and Roger: everything you need to know is covered here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html

(Fact vs. theory, evolution vs. abiogenesis, transitional fossils, evolution observed in the lab and in nature, verified predictions, et cetera - complete with references to peer-reviewed scientific literature.)

If after having read them, you think you can refute any of the refutations, come back and try. If you succeed, you will almost certainly win a Nobel Prize!

However, you will have to do much better than, "I don't understand it, so it must not be true!" (Do you understand General Relativity?) (I don't.) Or, "Some scientists have been dishonest, therefore I don't have to accept evolution even though the National Science Foundation and all other major scientific institutions do." (The scientists were "caught" by the way by other scientists, because scientists have to give their data and methods in peer-reviewed papers where others can check them.)

Posted by: Uber | July 24, 2007 10:00 PM

If one believes there is a Designer to whom man is accountable, that world view may also influence one's morality.

No dipstick, it's not what you believe, you can believe anything. It's what you have evidence for and that is the material world.

People have experienced "out of body" experiences and "near death experiences," as well as supernatural experiences in which they experience "contact" with spiritual beings who are not part of this material world. You evidently believe the material realm is all that exists,

You you apparently believe in all manner of bullshit that have either been debunked or have perfectly natural explanations as amazing as they may be.

Posted by: khan | July 24, 2007 10:44 PM

Troll/Fundie/Dungeon alert!

Posted by: MartinM | July 25, 2007 9:42 AM

...is string theory simply an expedition to explore new possibilities in "materialism?"

Yes. All physical science deals with the physical, strangely enough. To be perfectly honest, I don't think you really grasp what physicists mean by the word 'dimension.' To a physicist, 'dimension of the spirit' is just gibberish.

Posted by: Roger | July 25, 2007 12:14 PM

OK, P-W, so now they will not speak to you because you brought to their attention the possiblity of an alternative to their theory.

Thanks for the insight you brought....it has been stimulating and enlightening

Posted by: Steve_C | July 25, 2007 12:31 PM

Wrong. It's because you people are dense.

String Theory is NOT an alternative to evolution. It doesn't even discuss biology.

Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 25, 2007 12:37 PM

String theory seems much more likely to open the possibility of other dimensions, like the dimension of the spirit.

Nope. It ain't.

It's a whole lot of hard math which people do in the hope that they will eventually be able to make definite predictions which can be tested by experiment. Same as any other materialistic idea from Big Bad Science.

Posted by: Lepht | July 25, 2007 12:54 PM

okay, i have given up on this entirely. i'm just back here to root for anyone who doesn't think belief is a solution to problems, who can actually read and comprehend an argument,and who are actually searching for truth instead of blindly following what they've been told.

PZ, i apologise for feeding the trolls. Roger, P-W, i hope one day you wonder why you accept Christian mythology, but not Muslim or Grecian. Rey Fox, Science Avenger, get in there!

Lepht

PS. i am not angry because of my drugs, you deltoid; the stuff i take is sedative and if anything is making me *nicer*.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 25, 2007 2:55 PM

Sigh. I was busy doing other things, like working, and sleeping. I'm willing to keep up the debate, but I do need time to do other stuff...

I'm breaking this reply up, because I do have other things I need to take care of in between crafting responses:

I would suggest you examine string theory to determine whether the three or four dimensions science currently deals with are all that exist, as you evidently assume. [...] String theorists postulate as many as nine or ten dimensions. Obviously, they are theorists, but in attempting to explain the things current science is incapable of explaining, some of those theorists postulate other dimensions.

I'm sorry, but you've completely misunderstood string theory.

While Blake's response above in #203 is correct, I'll expand on it a bit:

It's kind of funny, because some scientists are a bit irritated at the use of the word "theory" in "string theory" — precisely because (at the time that I write this), there is no way to test any of these theories. In the scientific sense, these string theories are actually "string hypotheses". And all they are, really, are attempts to create an internally consistent mathematical model of a hypothetical structure that would be consistent with all currently observed subatomic particles, and would be a way of accounting for their properties and behavior.

Yes, these string hypotheses have included models which require many higher dimensions — but I think you're a bit confused as to what a dimension is. In this case, it's a mathematical and physical concept, just the more usually comprehensible 3-dimensions-of-space-and-1-dimension-of-time universe is a mathematical and physical concept.

There is nothing in string theory that would be mapped to anything like a "spiritual" dimension, in the way that you use the term, which I am guessing is something like "something that we can't see with our current science", or something vague like that.

I took this part out from the above so as to respond to it separately:

Is it possible that a human is greater than the sum of their physical parts?

It depends on what "greater" means. Of course there's a lot about ourselves that we don't yet understand — but so far, nothing has been found that transcends physical matter.

Some of the most important scientific fields that have been growing in recent times is the study of physical and mathematical systems following fairly simple rules, yet resulting in enormously complex and unpredictable behavior. This field of complexity theory is still very young, and the reason I bring it up is because emergent complexity is an example of something that is indeed greater than the sum of its parts, yet is still wholly material, with no requirement for "spirituality" to account for it. A simple, basic example of this are those images I'm sure you've seen around somewhere. Fractals are mathematical constructs whose rules are very simple, yet their expression is very complex.

Now, you may want to think that perhaps somewhere in this complexity there is room for spirituality. This has always happened when theists learn something of new physical sciences, such as quantum mechanics, or string theory, or whatever. But the burden of proof is on the theists. As far as science can discover, these are simply the rules by which the universe works. There is not the slightest hint that there is anything "out there" that makes the rules that way, or can be hidden behind the rules. As it has always been, the burden of proof is on theists, to define what "spirit" means in the context of what science has discovered, and is consistently meaningful with, and testable by, those discoveries and observations.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 25, 2007 10:05 PM

If one is taught macroevolutionary theory in an uncritical manner, they may be ignorant of some of the problems made by observations from nature. Consider the following source as a possible option for more critically examining the macroevolutionary hypothesis:

http://www.christiananswers.net/

No.

Evolution is a proven biological phenomenon. You've offered absolutely nothing to demonstrate that Christianity has any insight into biology; indeed, your comments have been almost uniform examples of common Creationist errors, showing complete misunderstanding and confusion about evolution, biology, and science in general. More importantly, your comments started out with the severe confusion that the particular texts of your religion have anything meaningful to say about biology or cosmology.

While Christians may be biologists, and biologists may be Christians, Christianity qua Christianity has no basis in which to offer any criticism of modern biological science.

Posted by: Stanton | July 25, 2007 11:13 PM

Really P-W? You have a cud-chewing rabbit? (Leviticus 11:6.)

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 26, 2007 2:21 AM

I'm not even sure that "spirit" is meaningful. Can you even define "spirit" coherently?

Things like vodka, whisky or merlot.

Well, that's me told.

But... Scientifically, I think we need to test these spirits, rigorously. Perhaps you can procure some samples? Preferably chilled?

Posted by: P-W | July 26, 2007 8:06 AM

Consider the following source as a possible option for more critically examining the macroevolutionary hypothesis:

http://www.christiananswers.net/

No.

Evolution is a proven biological phenomenon.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 25, 2007 10:05 PM

That website contains links to observable data from nature and the Creation Research Institute website.

Posted by: P-W | July 26, 2007 8:58 AM

People have experienced "out of body" experiences and "near death experiences," as well as supernatural experiences in which they experience "contact" with spiritual beings who are not part of this material world.

Rather, there are people who have claimed to have had such experiences.

I'm not saying they are all lying, but the assertion that something supernatural has occurred is not proven by these claims, precisely because we know that the brain can get into some very weird states sometimes.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 25, 2007 09:53 PM

You are correct that the brain can play tricks on us, especially under critical physical experiences, and I am aware of those who classify all near death experiences as "brain tricks." Obviously, some are willing to discount all evidence which contradicts their preconceived conclusions.

Eyewitness accounts are valuable sources of information when they are honest attempts to recall the past. There is a doctor who was so convinced his patient's "near death experience" (which he observed firsthand -- and whom he personally revived) provided evidence of the spiritual realm, he made a decision to accept the God of the Bible. He could not ignore his firsthand witness of his patient's experience. He changed from a person of disinterest to a Bible "believer." It so changed his life he even has produced television programs for TBN on the very subject of "near death experiences," and he documented his patient's experience which made him a "convinced" Bible believer.

To claim there is no spiritual realm is unscientific, even if science at this time is incapable of "proving" its existence, just as the physical scienes are incapable of explaining myriads of other things at present.

To assume there is no spiritual realm because the physical sciences are incapable of verifying them, is ridiculous logic. Proving a universal negative is impossible. Physical science is a fallible attempt by man to more fully understand the universe. To place one's entire eternity in the hands of a fallible baby science which is so incapable of explaining so many areas of nature that it requires the rise of "string theorists," is in my opinion rather foolish. But that is exactly what "materialism" does. It makes man's limited knowledge of the physical sciences a "religion."

Posted by: P-W | July 26, 2007 9:32 AM

Perhaps you could choose one argument you feel is particularly good and present it here. Preferably in your own words, so that we know you understand it yourself.

Posted by: MartinM | July 26, 2007 08:51 AM

" I seem to recall reading a quote by Darwin in which he expressed extreme concern over the fact that the fossil record failed to record the multitudes of 'transitional forms' he postulated. He seemed to believe that the fossil record could prove his theory of macroevolution wrong." P-W

No. Even if not a single transitional fossil had ever been found, it would not have "disproved" the theory.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 24, 2007 07:33 PM

Perhaps to restate my argument a little more accurately, Darwin appeared to be concerned that his macroevolutionary theory could be "falsified" by the amazing lack of transitional forms which have never been found (but which many assume exist and which Darwin postulated should exist in abundance in the fossil record).

The fact that Darwin's postulated "multitudes of transitional forms" don't occur is falsification of his theory, although Owlmirror evidently assumes macroevolutionary theory cannot be falsified.

I am aware that one of the DNA scientists has now advocated man's appearance as a result of "astronauts" from other galaxies, because his "macroevolutionary" faith for man's existence has been "shaken."

I have read an Australian scientist who argued that cladistics disproves the macroevolutionary hypothesis, yet you will find "quacks" who claim cladistics "proves" the macroevolutionary hypothesis. The magic formula for the macroevolutionary dogmatists is: genetics plus time = macroevolution. "Time" is the magic part of the formula.

Posted by: Stanton | July 26, 2007 11:03 AM

No, let me make myself clearer:
Science is about observing the natural world and making sense of what tangible evidence tells us about the natural world.
Astral projection, out of body experiences, the spirit world, all of those things have left absolutely no tangible evidnce, and are not of the natural world. As such the studies of such topics are not science for two important reasons.
I stand by my statement that chiding people for making "science" a "religion" simply because they can not perceive it in order to study it to be inane and moronic.

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 26, 2007 1:30 PM

No use trying to pin him down to any specific claim, Martin. He's just going to Gish Gallop all over us. You might as well be asking him who the "Australian scientist" and "one of the DNA scientists" are. I suspect that the latter might be P-W's crude and uninformed way of trying to identify someone connected with the Human Genome Project, but who the heck knows?

By the way, I had a near-death experience once, and I saw leprechauns. Now there's a spanner in the works.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 26, 2007 3:45 PM

(christiananswers.net) That website contains links to observable data from nature and the Creation Research Institute website.

No. Like all creationist websites, it contains links to half-truths and lies.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 26, 2007 4:40 PM

Proving a universal negative is impossible.

So? All logic must be in accord with observations and understood definitions.

There is no dry land on the ocean floor.

There are no naturally growing palm trees at the North Pole.

There is no naturally breathable atmosphere on the Earth's Moon.

There is no evidence that the bible story of creation is true, nor that a universal flood covered all of the Earth at any point in the past 10000 years, or ever.

There is no evidence that the universe has a creator; nor is there any evidence that the universe needs a creator.

Physical science is a fallible attempt by man to more fully understand the universe.

Science is a chaining together of successive observations and facts. Each observation and fact may be a small thing in and of itself, but the whole is the best estimate at what reality itself is that we have. Any fallibility in the system results because individual humans are fallible — which is why science insists on careful citations and observations that are repeatable by other observers elsewhere. The system of science tries to take fallibility into account, and correct for it.

Religion, in contrast, ignores human fallibility. Indeed, religion only succeeds because humans are fallible, and gullible.

To place one's entire eternity in the hands of a fallible baby science

Science may be a "baby", but it's a prodigy with a few centuries of great success, and what certainly looks like a bright future ahead of it.

Religion is an insane old man with dementia, who sometimes plays with the baby, and sometimes makes attempts to assault the baby, or drown it, or rape it, or set it on fire.

which is so incapable of explaining so many areas of nature that it requires the rise of "string theorists,"

Make up your mind, will you? You're the one that brought up string theory in the first place.

Posted by: MartinM | July 26, 2007 5:10 PM

The fact that Darwin's postulated "multitudes of transitional forms" don't occur is falsification of his theory

What, in your opinion, would a transitional form look like? What would we need to show you?

Posted by: Rey Fox | July 26, 2007 5:42 PM

At least we have the toe fossil.

Posted by: Brownian | July 26, 2007 6:12 PM

I can recall Hovind stating that these guys can produce an entire being, and it's wife, from the find of a toe fossil...

Bet you they can do more than that

I'll take that bet Roger, since I studied a fair amount of physical anthropology.

What can be inferred from a single bone (or a number of unconnected bones) is something called the 'minimum number of individuals' or MNI. You see, even from fragments, you can very often tell what a bone is and which side of the body it comes from (I used to bet fellow students coffee money that I could identify and side metacarpals--wrist bones--blindfolded.) The MNI is determined by pairing and comparing like bones. For instance, if you were to find two left fibulae in a pile of bones, you can conclude that at least two individuals contributed their skeletons to that pile. If the two previous bones are from adults and another found in the pile is from a child (based on the fact that the ends of children's bones aren't fully fused) you can also conclude that least three individuals contributed their skeletons to that pile. For bones that display sexual characteristics like the skull and the pelvis, you can determine gender. All of this information allows physical anthropologists to make very educated estimates of from whom a bone came from.

This is a far cry from Hovind's assertion, but that fellow has some real issues with truth.

Any other aspect of science you'd like to be actually educated on?

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 26, 2007 6:19 PM

Any other aspect of science you'd like to be actually educated on?

I'll bet a bottle of Stanton's spirits that you lost him at the words "physical anthropology".

Posted by: Brownian | July 26, 2007 6:33 PM

Let's at least hope he won't be throwing out "Dr. Hovind says they" to the people who are actually part of "they".

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 26, 2007 7:30 PM

At some point, I'll get bored. Until then, it beats another round of Solitaire.

Posted by: bob | July 27, 2007 8:22 AM

"I have read an Australian scientist who argued that cladistics disproves the macroevolutionary hypothesis, yet you will find "quacks" who claim cladistics "proves" the macroevolutionary hypothesis.

Who is this Australian scientist? Names and references. I am heavily involved with systematics, and even the most die-hard supports of Bayesian and maximum-likelihood have never said anything like that. The assumption that cladistics is based upon is that macro-evolution is true. The fact that using parsimony based on shared acquired characteristics can give us a result is support for evolution. If macro-evolution, (change over time, and common descent) were not true then cladistics should be incapable of reproducing a phylogeny.

With the original question, evolution is both theory and fact, like gravity. The genetic make-up of a population changes over time. That is evolution, and that is an observable fact. Much like, gravity, the force pulling you down is an observable fact. However, how this change in the genetic make-up of a population occurs and what are the rules governing this change are theories. Just like the theory of gravity explains how gravity works. Both theories can be tested, and have been.

I can understand how you can be confused about theory verse fact in this case. In the scientific world, the basic theory evolution have been so well tested and have been found to be so robust, that many scientists treat the theory of evolution as simple fact.

To say that evolution is just a theory and therefore isn't real, is like saying that gravity is a theory and therefore we can fly.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 27, 2007 2:35 PM

There is a scientist who produces science programs that run on TBN who has very interesting data.

You mean, there is a Creationist liar who produces television shows on a Creationist television network who spreads lots of lies.

He has produced a book with a photograph of fossilized cowboy boots from the United States

You mean these boots? The ones for which the claimant will not allow any further examination of the data? The ones which no-one else has been allowed to examine?

  http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm

(miillions of years old would be the proper assumption).

False.

See, this is the difference between real science and Creationist science-raping. Real science demands that all evidence be examined thoroughly, and be permitted to be scrutinized by other scientists; that all data be made available to those in the appropriate fields.

Creationist-religion-pretend-science waves something like this around, says "See? Fossil boots in a few decades! Looks millions of years old!" — and then hides everything, and refuses to allow anyone to examine it at all.

He also includes a photo of an ancient rock (from Peru) having an ancient carving of a man astride a very specific type of dinosaur (shades of Dynotopia)!

A quick Google suggests that these are called Ica stones. Eh. I'm too busy right now to look into it, but a misinterpretation or a fake is more likely than "a very specific type of dinosaur".

  http://www.skepdic.com/icastones.html

As most of you are probably aware, the life span of a fruit fly is miniscule compared to that of a human. That scientist has bred several hundred thousand generations of fruitflies over several decades, which are equivalent to the number of generations macroevolutionists claim it took for man to evolve

Who is claiming that equivalence?

The fruit-fly breeding is meant to test various ideas about mutation, inheritance, and evolution. Everything that was discovered was in support of evolution.

As with these and many similar assertions, these are long standing creationist claims, which don't have anything to do with disproving evolution.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910_1.html

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 27, 2007 7:53 PM

(My reply is that he is a macroevolutionist who had a change of mind).

What is his name, anyway? If he's a creationist, I am willing to bet that he's lying about having been a "macroevolutionist" as well. But I would be open to evidence that he simply went insane instead.

Creationist-religion-pretend-science waves something like this around, says "See? Fossil boots in a few decades! Looks millions of years old!" -- and then hides everything, and refuses to allow anyone to examine it at all.

(My reply is that he is building a Creationist museum which is perfectly open to visitors containing many of the items he has come across).

Open to visitors is not the same as open to scientific investigation. Will he allow his "evidence" to be examined by geologists, chemists and paleontologists? And if thorough scientific investigation shows that the boot is not fossilized as he claims, will he publish a retraction?

If he doesn't, then he's no different from any of the other creationist liars out there.

Who is denying the evidence that he offers? You are.

Since he isn't offering his purported evidence for scientific examination, I'm saying that he's lying that he even has evidence until proven otherwise.

Scientists who refuse to let their evidence be examined are viewed with the greatest suspicion by their peers, even when the subject is nowhere near as unusual and extraordinary as millions-of-years-old-fossil-boots would be. Are they hiding something? Are they tampering with the data? If they really have something real and important, why are they hiding it?

So the suspicion is all the greater — and deservedly so, giving the constant lying by creationists — when a creationist says he has something that "disproves" some matter of basic paleontology or biology.

Because when similar claims in the past were investigated, it always turned out that the creationist was lying.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 28, 2007 6:06 PM

The late Dr. Francis Schaeffer suggested in a video curriculum which I had the opportunity to observe, that modern science is greatly indebted to the Bible and its world view because of the fact the Bible posits the existence of an intelligent Creator. That in itself suggests by inference that the intelligent Creator's "work" can be "intelligently" understood.

No, I think not.

The Bible is not a scientific text, nor does it encourage analysis or investigation. The alleged creator is not described as an intellect whose work is meant to be studied, but as a powerful authority to be obeyed and never questioned.

While it does have a few psalms about the glory of the natural world, that glory is presented like the clothes of wealthy king, to be admired from afar but not looked at closely. While it does have the line "Thou shalt not bear false witness" -- a commandment that few if any creationists have ever obeyed -- there is no positive injunction to actively seek out what is true, document it, and present it to the world. And there's certainly no suggestion that if its own words are found to be contradicted by evidence, that the evidence is to be accepted and those words of the bible to be rejected. Dogma is held to be absolute.

While sometimes otherwise religious societies have become sufficiently relaxed from their dogma to permit or even encourage investigation, this investigation is almost always restricted by said dogma.

In very nearly all places where liberal investigation of reality is permitted, religion is weak--because when actually questioned, it is found wanting in facts. In nearly all places where religious dogma is held paramount, science is very weak, and is often entirely absent.

Schaeffer suggested that the rise of natural science during the Reformation was aided by the Bible world view which indicated an intelligent Creator existed who's work could be intelligently examined. This world view was of inestimable value towards a "coherent" examination of the physical universe.

A case could be made that skepticism towards the bible -- and in response, emphasizing rigorous ways of finding truth -- resulted after the Reformation because so many doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church were being overthrown. If indulgences, transubstantiation, the sacraments, and the authority of the pope were actively denied, perhaps other doctrines and dogmas could be rejected as well.

Also, more people could actually read the Bible in their own language. Once it is seen what the bible actually says, it's also possible to see how much it is lacking in evidence. And for that matter, how cruel the character of god is.

However, more to the point, the Reformation came with the invention and spread of the printing press, and the subsequent dispersal of all sorts of information. Far more important than the bible in the growth of science were the works of the ancient philosophers like Archimedes, Eratosthenes and Aristotle, all of whom had the essence of science in their writings: Make observations, document them carefully, showing materials and methods, and correlate them with past observations to discover new rules or new facts that derive from these observations. These philosophers were not always entirely correct -- but where they were wrong, the problem was almost always because of insufficiently accurate tools, or data that they had not or could not collect properly. While they were sometimes sloppy or swayed by biases, the science grew because someone kept on questioning.

While scientists of the early Reformation were religious -- as are some scientists even now -- all scientists take their methodology from those philosophers, who documented their observations, not because they were religious, but because that is how truth is built.

The point is that the discovery of truth is held paramount, and dogma is rejected if it is contradicted by fact.

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 29, 2007 8:06 PM

It is interesting to me to note the way the claims have been backed away from in this thread, going from the ridiculous assertion of the scientific factuality of the bible to trying to support the claim that Christianity has social utility. To be honest, I think the latter is a much less contentious claim, and certainly Christians (especially Christian evolutionary biologists) who acknowledge that reality is more important than dogma would still contend that Christianity has value. I am much less interested in arguing this point than refuting the obviously false claims of Creationists, but since I do have some points, I'll continue.

Dr. D. James Kennedy has made the observation that wherever the Bible has been held in esteem, there the society and its sciences have prospered.

This claim is very vague. What does "held in esteem" mean, any way? How carefully did he observe, given that it has been shown that religiosity and education do tend to have an inverse correlation, in that at least some places with high religiosity — such as the American South; the "Bible Belt" — has higher crime rates, greater poverty, and lower education than the more liberal and far less religious states?

There is a difference between "religious dogma" and a Biblical world view.

Oh? Can you describe this difference?

He also noted that wherever the Bible has been held in esteem, there has been the proliferation of colleges and universities and hospitals. In fact most hospitals and a vast majority of colleges and universities were the products of Christian faith.

Yes, many institutions were built by wealthy Christians. However, wealthy pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Confucians, and Buddhists also built great institutions. And at least some Christians, pagans, Muslims, Hindus, Confucians, and Buddhists tore down some existing institutions — and are still trying to do so.

When religiosity leads to both creation and destruction, the only logical explanation is that it's necessary to look deeper than religiosity for both creation and destruction.

What is the common element in the inspiration to create?

If we eliminate the name of the religion, we can focus on the specific emotions that inspire that creativity:

Centers of learning are created by those who favor learning; the process of curiosity, honesty, and sharing of knowledge.

Centers of healing and charity are created by those who feel compassion for other humans.

Since Christianity is neither necessary nor sufficient for the above, the absolute most that can be said is that some Christians use Christianity as a means to express compassion and/or love of learning.

What is the common element in the inspiration to destroy?

Well, it is often hatred — but all too often that hatred is political or religious hatred for those who are not in the same political or religious group.

And I therefore think it is equally fair to state that some Christians use Christianity as a means to express contempt, hatred and cruelty toward those who are not of their own group.

He wrote a book in detail on the very subject. All one needs to do is examine the history of the West and compare it to the history of the East, and trace the route of the Bible and its legitimate adherents.

"Legitimate" — and who decides "legitimacy", anyway? No schismatic or heretic has ever been illegitimate in their own eyes; it's always the one they're splitting from who is illegitimate.

More to the point, though, comparing the West to the East is fraught with complexity. Which aspects of history are important? It can just as easily be said that the West gained a momentary advantage, and exploited it ruthlessly in colonization, expansion of trade routes, and conquest. Once those victories were won, some individuals became very wealthy, and invested some of that wealth in the universities and hospitals mentioned above.

The difference between East and West, I note, is quite often a matter of attitude towards the past; towards tradition and heritage. The excessive reverence for the teachings of the past meant that societies were unwilling to examine those teachings; they were unwilling to innovate past a certain point, because their ancestors had not done so, or because religious innovation was (and is) forbidden, and therefore any innovation was forbidden.

And, tragically enough, that is exactly what Creationists want to do to the West now: turn away from certain truths that have been learned about nature and reality, and force onto all of society a restrictive, unreasonable, and completely undeserved reverence for the words of the Bible.

Please tell me how atheism has advanced society and the world? What hospitals, universities, and colleges have the atheists built? What has been the incredible contribution of atheism througout history that has so changed civilization?

These are wrong questions. It has been my contention throughout that it is not "Christianity" that is responsible for advancement and progress; it would not be my contention that "atheism" is responsible.

However, I would assert that we can assign a term to the positive creative concept of compassion towards other humans, and to the prescriptive belief that humanity can improve itself. That concept can be covered by the word "humanism".

I would also assert that we can assign a term to the positive creative concept of the love of learning; the positive belief that humanity can continue to learn by studying reality and sharing the knowledge with others. That concept can be covered by the term "freethinking".

Both humanism and freethinking try to identify the common concepts that have lead to the greatest progress and general welfare of all. Thus, it has been humanistic and freethinking ideals that have lead to all progress throughout time — regardless of whether belief in God was involved or not.

Since you asked.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 29, 2007 9:21 PM

STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS.

They are ignorant godbots that won't except amy evidence we give them.

They don't care.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2007 11:11 AM

Seeeeee?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Posted by: Steve_C | July 30, 2007 11:36 AM

Yeah we know all about Hitler's master race plan. It was all based on german mythology and a total lack of understanding of genetics.

Nationalist fronts are an ugly thing. They often use religion and racial pride to justify their twisted agendas. Take a look at the Christian Militia movements sometime. Or the Army of God perhaps.

Posted by: P-W | July 30, 2007 9:54 PM

"I have read an Australian scientist who argued that cladistics disproves the macroevolutionary hypothesis, yet you will find "quacks" who claim cladistics "proves" the macroevolutionary hypothesis. P-W

Who is this Australian scientist?

Posted by: bob | July 27, 2007 08:22 AM

Sorry to be so late in getting back to you. I have located my copy of Michael Denton's book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis." He is the Australian scientist I was referring to.

You will find plenty of reviews on the internet, pro and con. Creationists are usually pro Denton, and macroevolutionists are usually anti Denton.

The particular chapter I am referring to is Chapter 6, pages 119-140. You might also be interested in Chapter 12, "A Biochemical Echo of Typology."

P-W

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 1, 2007 12:02 AM

Corrected URL: The above URL was a later paper by Crick and Orgel, on RNA as the basis for very early self-reproducing life. The paper by Crick and Orgel on Directed Panspermia is here. It is only 6 pages long.

    http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/P/_/scbccp.pdf

Posted by: Roger | August 1, 2007 3:36 PM

Good grief P-W, are you perhaps suggesting that even Darwin had his doubts about his own theory because he could not find evidence of missing links?

Did you not hear PZ categorically say that there are no obstacles to this story and theory being a fact?

Have you not learned anything from these scientists?

P-w, no matter which way their "evidence" is shaved, cut, bent, twisted, presented, and theorised, I'm afraid you will have to accept it as fact, or you will be branded another creationist liar and moron....after all they are the scientists, you know.

Have you not learned anything at all?

Posted by: Brownian | August 1, 2007 3:51 PM

So, what's your problem with Tiktaalik roseae?

That's not transitional between lobe-finned fishes and tetrapods? In fact, it is exactly the sort of fossil evolutionary theory would predict and Lo! and Behold: there it is.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 1, 2007 4:37 PM

(The link to Penny's paper on fossils which you included in one of your comments admits the same "gradual" links are missing, although not in the words I have used).

Did you read the whole thing? If you couldn't read it, did you at least look at the pictures? At least the ones showing the sequence of "Eusthenopteron -> Pandeichthys -> Tiktaalik; Acanthostega"?

Is there something about the explanation of how each of these fossils are a chain of transitional forms between ancient fish and ancient amphibians that you just didn't understand?

No, we don't have all transitional fossils between each of those species. But we have these fossils, which do show clear transitions.

Even if we had no fossils at all; even if there were zero fossil bones or shells found of any organism whatsoever -- there is still all of the enormous genetic and biochemical evidence linking all living animals, which is positive evidence for the theory of evolution. And this body of evidence keeps growing, as more and more organisms have their complete genome sequenced.

Posted by: P-W | August 3, 2007 10:05 AM

I just realized something...

You've been insisting, over and over, that there is an absence of transitional fossils. This is false; there are sufficient transitional fossils to demonstrate more than a few biological lineages.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 1, 2007 08:20 PM

You are correct that there are no lack of transitional forms for the verification of "microevolution" (which is simple genetics and evidenced by the hybridization process). Those transitional forms which verify Darwin's MICRO-evolutionary theory are observable in everyday life (like the different races of man). I am not disputing genetics nor Darwin's MICRO-evolutionary hypothesis. I consider those issues to be irrefutably verified by a simple observation of everyday life.

It was Darwin himself who complained (in his own book) that the gradual transitional forms for his GRADUAL MACRO-evolutionary theory are missing from the fossil record. He made that observation as the quotations I supplied from Darwin's own book indicate (blog comment #260 above).

If I were to summarize the three quotes from Darwin's own book (as quoted in blog #260 above), I would say that Darwin was complaining in the following manner:

Just as we don't see gradual transitional forms in daily life to verify MACRO-evolution, but instead we see well-defined kinds of life without any gradual transitions between them (derived from Darwin quote #1 - from blog comment #260 above), in the same manner the fossil record mirrors what we see from daily life, a lack of gradual transitional forms linking the well-defined major kinds of life (derived from Darwin quotes #1, #2, and #3 from blog comment #260 above).

Darwin's whole "gripe" can be reduced to the simple observation that: the fossil record mirrors what we see in everyday life, a lack of gradual transitional life forms to confirm and verify his GRADUALLY realized MACRO-evolutionary hypothesis.

The whole issue is over whether macroevolution, if it ever occurs, takes place in a GRADUAL manner as Darwin hypothesized, or in a RAPID and sporadic manner. Darwin favored the GRADUAL form of macroevolution, but the RAPID and sporadic form is advocated by modern proponents of "punctuated equilibrium."

My whole claim is that the RAPID and sporadic form of macroevolution (punctuated equilibrium) is best favored by the fossil record, because the theory of "punctuated equilibrium" best explains the lack of "gradual transitional fossil links." Indeed, "punctuated equilibrium" doesn't need any "gradual transitional links" in the fossil record, and supposes that "gradual transitional links" do not even exist (in harmony with the fossil record). Darwin's "gradual" form of the macroevolutionary hypothesis requires a "gradual sequence of links" which are missing from the fossil record.

The only problem is this, since the "gradual transitional links" are missing for verification of Darwin's "gradual form of macroevolution," and since the rapid sporadic form of macroevolution (punctuated equilibrium) does not need any more evidence of transitional forms than what we supposedly observe in daily life, why believe macroevolution based on the "mute" (insignificant) fossil evidence?

Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2007 11:02 PM

Owl.

He's a dyed in the wool creationist. He believes god did it. He may even think the world is 10,000 years old.

He doesn't understand how speciation works. Doesn't want to. He's got his religous doubters who reaffirm his superstitious beliefs.

You will go back and forth like this forever, until he picks up a book and actually reads what the theory of evolution is and what it's mechanisms are.

That he says there's micro but not macro proves he doesn't get it.

Posted by: Steve_C | August 4, 2007 11:31 PM

Yeah. People don't like to mess with their gaurded delusions.

Try popping by abovetopsecret.com... there's a whole world of wacky out there.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 5, 2007 1:44 AM

There was an article a while back about a teacher in a public school who is trying to teach evolution. Unfortunately, the parents of the children got some bigshot Creationist, I think it was Ken Ham, to spread his standard mixture of blithering idiocy and lies to the kids. So the kids were often acting up, and combining typical adolescent rebellion and snottiness with spewing Ham's slams to the teacher, as he was trying to show them the evidence for evolution.

I don't think I could take that. I simply wouldn't have the patience to put up with that sort of crap. But I admire the teacher's fortitude, and his persistent hope that he might just get through to some of them if he was allowed to get through the curriculum and explain all of the evidence, and correct the misconceptions the kids were ignorantly echoing.

The students might not be able to learn, but I don't think that it's wrong to try and teach the facts.

Or to put it another way, it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.

Posted by: P-W | August 5, 2007 4:01 PM

Creationist-religion-pretend-science waves something like this around, says "See? Fossil boots in a few decades! Looks millions of years old!" -- and then hides everything, and refuses to allow anyone to examine it at all.

Open to visitors is not the same as open to scientific investigation. Will he allow his "evidence" to be examined by geologists, chemists and paleontologists? And if thorough scientific investigation shows that the boot is not fossilized as he claims, will he publish a retraction?

Posted by: Owlmirror | July 27, 2007 07:53 PM

I located my copy of Dr. Baugh's book which contains photos of the "Limestone Cowboy." I reexamined the evidence in light of your inference that Dr. Baugh has something to hide.

Dr. Baugh, at the end of the second page (p. 111) of the two pages containing the photos of the "Limestone Cowboy" in his book (copyright 1999), presents some interesting information which I had not remembered, but which stood out in light of the solicitation by the man at this following link (which you included in one of your blog comments), who indicates his solicitation to "examine" the fossilized evidence was rejected by Dr. Baugh:

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm

The website you mentioned above (copyright 2006) makes the following claim:

"Unless more rigorous evidence is provided by Baugh or other 'limestone cowboy boot' advocates, their claims that the boot contains a fossilized leg must be regarded as dubious at best. It appears more likely that the boot contains unfossilized bones surrounded by whatever sediment filled and hardened in the boot void after the flesh decayed away--providing no evidence against evolution, nor even rapid fossilization." D R A F T (C) 2006, Glen J. Kuban

What is interesting to me is that the comment Dr. Baugh made (copyright 1999) at the end of page 111 was conveniently "excluded" by the author of the previous website who is soliciting an opportunity to "examine" the cowboy's leg in Dr. Baugh's museum.

The comment Dr. Baugh made in that 1999 book is prefaced by the fact that radiological x-rays were performed at a Texas hospital in 1997 (which Dr. Baugh names and dates more specifically in his book, along with the name of the technician who performed the x-ray scans at the identified hospital). What is more interesting is the evaluating comment Dr. Baugh makes at the end of page 111. Dr. Baugh makes the confession that rapid fossilization of some materials is well known by experts in the field of fossils and is "not" a scientific "issue."

So what then is the point of the solicitation to "examine" the cowboy leg by the skeptic? Obviously, if the skeptic is unaware that rapid fossilization occurs (which is exactly the assertion he questions on his web page in the quote above), that individual is obviously not an expert on fossils because he is unaware that fossil experts are aware that rapid fossilization takes place and is "not" a scientific "issue," and so the non-expert skeptic's "verification" would be worthless. If the skeptic were an expert on fossils, "rapid fossilization" would not be an issue with him, but that is his exact problem.

Obviously, since the skeptic should be aware by now that "rapid fossilization" of some materials is "not" a scientific "issue" among exerts in the field (at least since Dr. Baugh's book is dated as 1999 and contains that information, and the skeptic could refute or verify the issue of rapid fossilization from other sources), a possible logical conclusion is that the skeptic may have some concealed and ulterior motive for examining the evidence which he is refusing to reveal to Dr. Baugh, which in itself suggests that the skeptic possibly cannot be trusted. This explains to me why Dr. Baugh would responsibly refuse the non-expert skeptic's solicitation to "examine" the evidence.

Furthermore, Dr. Baugh's main interest about the "Limestone Cowboy" is not to "prove" rapid fossilization takes place (which is already well known by experts in the field). Dr. Baugh's real purpose with the "Limestone Cowboy" is to make a point with his outlandish relic:

that experts in the field of fossils are refusing to educate the general public about rapid fossilization (page 111).

And why? The inference is that macroevolutionists, by refusing to educate the public on rapid fossilization of some materials, are allowing the general public to be misled into the false assumption that "if something is a fossil, it must be "centuries, milleniums, or millions of years old."

Posted by: Steve_C | August 5, 2007 6:53 PM

Uhg.

Like I said before. PW will pull crap liek this out of his crationist... ummm...

Anyway.

There's no point. PW will only accept creaionist "science skeptics" before he even bothers to read about the evidence of evolution from real scientists.

Posted by: Stanton | August 5, 2007 7:51 PM

Furthermore, neither P-W nor "Dr" Baugh, nor any other creationist alive or dead today have never bothered to explain the logic of how an alleged "human finger," the severed foot in boot of an ex-cowboy, nor a hammer can somehow negate the fact that there are lots of observed, documented evidence of macroevolution, including the appearance of the Giant Evening primrose Oenothera gigas from the seed of Lamarck's Evening primrose, O. lamarckiana, the descent of the London Underground mosquito, Culex molestans from the European mosquito, C. pipiens within the last 100 years, or the appearance of the Honeysuckle Maggot Fly on the eastern North American coast, descended from hybrids of the Snowberry and Blueberry Maggot flies, within the last 250 years.
Well, that's not exactly true: creationists like P-W, and "Dr" Baugh figure that if they refuse to understand evolutionary biology, the evidence will miraculously cease to exist.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 6, 2007 3:46 AM

The inference is that macroevolutionists, by refusing to educate the public on rapid fossilization of some materials, are allowing the general public to be misled into the false assumption that "if something is a fossil, it must be "centuries, milleniums, or millions of years old."

Yup, that's horseshit, all right. Horseshit from an abused zombie horse with bad diarrhea from eating something rotten.

Dude. The dating of fossils, like all other scientific methods, is ultimately based on the evidence of chemical processes and radioactive decay.

When a scientist assigns an age to a fossil, it isn't given a particular age because it's a fossil; it's given that age because, by the best geochemical and radiochemical evidence, it really is that old. And the scientist will publish that dating method along with all of the other information about the fossil.

"Rapid" "fossilization" is completely meaningless if it is immediately obvious to an educated and experienced geologist with half a brain that it is indeed rapid, and that the "fossil" is obviously only a few decades old.

Nobody is "refusing" to "educate" the "public" about "rapid fossilization". If the "public" wants to be "educated" about "rapid fossilization", the public can fucking well take a fucking geochemistry course.

Sorry about the cursing. A bucket of horseshit dumped on my little candle of science makes me curse a bit.

Posted by: Stanton | August 6, 2007 8:24 PM

Oh, and before I forget...
The idea that evolutionary biologists refuse to educate the public about how fossilization or macroevolution occurs is as shit-brained stupid as the idea that the Twin Towers were actually blown up by missiles launched by the US military, or the idea that the Nazis never actually killed any Jews or other undesirables in the concentration camps, or even the idea that Jews leaven matzo with the blood of unbaptized babies.
Only a supremely stupid, mentally castrated moron could say that "evolutionists" are "misleading" the public about how fossils.
...
Oh, and for your information, P-W, when a "fossil" is less than 1 million years old, but older than 500,000 years old, it's termed a "subfossil."

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 7, 2007 3:06 PM

Consider, for example, that dinosaur bones which had not fossilized have been found.

More horseshit.

See the list of creationist claims.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html

  Citing the above page:

The bone that Schweitzer and her colleagues studied was fossilized, but it was not altered by "permineralization or other diagenetic effects" (Schweitzer et al. 1997b). Permineralization is the filling of the bone's open parts with minerals; diagenetic effects include alterations like cracking. Schweitzer commented that the bone was "not completely fossilized" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997, 35), but lack of permineralization does not mean unfossilized.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html

  Citing the above page:

The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).

You, again:

Perhaps you are aware that the claim is made that Tiktaalik roseae is 375 million years old?

Yes, the Late Devonian was about 385-359 million years ago. What's your point? Is there some Creationist horseshit that suggests that the dating of the Late Devonian is incorrect?

I will also refer you to the "Limestone Cowboy" controversy in the above blog comments which indicate fossil experts are aware of rapid fossilization.

Demonstrated as horseshit already. There is no meaningful comparison between a bootfull of recently crystalized calcium compounds and a fossil found and dated in real, known geological strata.

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 7, 2007 7:40 PM

I just don't know... P-W, you admitted up there that you weren't a scientist or a researcher. Are the scientific arguments being presented to rebut these ridiculous Creationist lies just so far above your head that you can't really understand them?

How about a simpler analogy?

Pretend, for a moment, that you have an heirloom, an antique desk that's been hand down in your family for five or six generations. You know that the desk is an antique because you've had it appraised by experts, who, in addition to looking at it closely all over and confirming that the style is that of a particularly well-known furniture maker of a few centuries ago, also tested tiny samples of the varnish and the wood to confirm that they too match the type of varnish and wood used by that furniture maker, and can be dated to the same approximate age. The antique desk was officially appraised by several experts as being very valuable.

But wait! Now someone comes along and shows you a catalog depicting a replica desk in the exact same style of your antique, and claims that the fact that this replica exists disproves that your heirloom is an antique. Indeed, this someone claims that your heirloom can't be much older than the oldest replica, and it certainly isn't worth more.

Granted that you don't know much about how antiques are analyzed and appraised — wouldn't you at least suspect that there was something very wrong with the argument itself?

And are you capable of realizing that claiming that all fossil dating is "suspect" because of some recently crystallized calcium compounds is the exact same sort of badly wrong argument?

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 8, 2007 6:23 PM

Yes, the Late Devonian was about 385-359 million years ago.

As a matter of interest, how was this determined?

Generally speaking, from known radioactive half-lives, and from isotope ratios given specific elements and their radioactive decay products. In the case of strata this old, an element with a very long half-life, like certain isotopes of uranium (found in zircon crystals and other minerals). For more detail:

  http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/usgsnps/gtime/ageofearth.html#date

and

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

The paper on Tiktaalik in Nature cites several geographic surveys of the region that the fossil was found in; presumably they go into greater detail of how the determination was performed.

• Embry, A. & Klovan, J. E. The Middle-Upper Devonian clastic wedge of the Franklinian Geosyncline. Bull. Can. Petrol. Geol. 24, 485—639 (1976)
• Chi, B. I. & Hills, L. V. Biostratigraphy and taxonomy of Devonian megaspores. Bull. Can. Petrol. Geol. 24, 640—813 (1976)
• Embry, A. F. in Geology of the Innuitian Orogen and Arctic Platform of Canada and Greenland (ed. Trettin, H. P.) 263—279 (Geological Survey of Canada, Calgary, 1991)

Posted by: P-W | August 9, 2007 6:27 PM

"But can unfossilized bones exist for more than a few thousand years?" P-W

See the list of creationist claims.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371.html

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 7, 2007 03:06 PM

Thank you for the link. I find its response rather unconvincing and inadequate on quite a large number of issues (like the partially unfossilized T-rex dinosaur bones), but the link is still an indispensible index for examining Creationist evidence! Thank you again!

Concerning the partially unfossilized T-rex bones, perhaps you are aware the claim is made by macroevolutionists that the last dinosaur lived 65 million years ago? (The website you provided above suggests well preserved and partially unfossilized T-rex dinosaur bones after 65 million years in order to rebutt the claim of recent dinosaurs?) Please! They should try selling me the Brooklyn Bridge instead!

I found your recommended website's review of the film "Footprints in Stone" rather interesting and unusually extensive (that film depicts fossil human footprints inside of actual dinosaur prints at the Paluxy River). I actually had the opportunity to view that very film. I can understand why the site you linked me to would give that film the kind of review it did: some of the macroevolutionary scientists who had examined the human footprints were actually filmed as they gave their examinations, and later their "rebuttals." A very phenomenal piece of filmaking from the standpoint of watching intelligent intellectuals rationalize away plainly obvious evidence!

I see the website you pointed out also has an uncertain rebuttal on the Ica Stones, which are Inca burial stones often depicting dinosaurs (about 1/3 out of the over 1,100 Dr. Baugh mentions depict various kinds of dinosaurs), often with humans interacting with those dinosaurs.

To indicate the inadequacy of your provided website's rebuttal on that issue, I will state that one of your previous blog comments suggesting the Ica Stones depicting a man astride a dinosaur might be a "misinterpretation" or a "fake" (the "fake" theory is reinforced and rebutted by various websites) caused me to hunt down and locate Dr. Baugh's 1999 book (in order to reexamine the evidence). I discovered I had forgotten information about those Ica Stones which the above website you pointed out never even mentions!

Dr. Baugh indicates that a chronicler of the Incas (which Dr. Baugh names) who wrote about 1570 spoke of the stones. It was noted that many of the stones the 1570 chronicler mentioned were taken back to Spain (in his time).

In addition, Dr. Baugh indicates some of the Ica Stones (Inca cemetary stones from Ica, Peru) depict amazing accomplishments, like brain surgery, which has been confirmed by skeletons with skulls having obvious scars from the successful procedure (Inca brain surgeons no less)! In addition, Dr. Baugh mentions the name and date of a newspaper article on the Ica Stones by a named, major Peruvian newspaper, which concerned a Spanish priest who in 1525 inquired about the stones with "strange" creatures on them. The dinosaurs? The term "dinosaur" was coined in 1841, according to Dr. Baugh.

One amazing note Dr. Baugh makes is that the pictures on some of the stones depicted some of the dinosaurs with dermal frills, before modern science had even confirmed that some dinosaurs do indeed have dermal frills (Dr. Baugh also provides the 1992 source which officially confirms those dermal frills exist on some dinosaurs)!

On another note, I found your following statement very succinct, precise, and perceptive. Your statement, in my opinion, gets to the central heart and core of the entire macroevolutionary/creationism issue.

"The evidence for macroevolution is the same evidence that exists for microevolution."

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 4, 2007 10:06 PM

This is probably the heart and central core of the entire issue. I have turned your succinct and perceptive statement into a question:

"Is evidence for microevolution the same evidence that exists for macroevolution?"

To the above question macroevolutionists will usually answer "yes," and Creationists will universally answer "no."

In your favor, you have Darwin, and probably the vast majority of macroevolutionists on your side. Darwin in his "Origin" book wrote of two theories:

1) his "special theory" (microevolution), and 2) his "general theorgy" (macroevolution).

Darwin extrapolated evidence for his microevolutionary theory (which has been scientifically verified), into his macroevolutionary theory (assumed to be verified).

From Darwin's two theories, he predicted the fossil record would have an "inconceivable" number of transitional forms, which he discovered was proven to be false. Yes, there are limited examples of microevolutionary "transitional forms," and numerous supposed examples of major life forms (without the gradual transitional chains to their hypothesized major links), but Darwin was shocked by the amazingly universal, and systematic (and now predictable) transitional gaps in the fossil record which his general theory predicted should exist between major life forms in "inconceivable" and gradual abundance.

Why do Creationists answer "no" to the question, "Is evidence for microevolution the same evidence that exists for macroevolution?"

While it is obviously correct that both theories are related, the fact is that the difference Creationists observe between the two theories is so vast, that equating the two as verified by the same evidence is impossible for them. The vast difference Creationists note is that the "special theory" (microevolution) deals with an EXISTING gene pool, but the "general theory" (macroevolution), postulates that NEW MATERIAL is BEING ADDED to that existing gene pool in order to generate new life forms.

Creationists are simply requiring evidence that the "mechanism" for macroevolution does indeed produce NEW GENETIC MATERIAL for the gene pool. So far, the evidence is abundantly manifest everywhere that genetic material is continually being LOST in the process of adaptation (i.e., vestigal organs and endangered species lists), but the evidence for a GAIN to the genetic pool is even refuted by the fruitfly experiment (blog comments #242, #243). After several hundred thousand generations of fruitflies over several decades of breeding, nothing greater than a fruitfly was ever produced (yet within the equivalent number of generations man was supposed to have evolved). Yes, the experiment provides abundant proof for microevolution (which is already proven), but evidence for a gain to the gene pool is still predictably missing.

Posted by: Brownian | August 9, 2007 7:13 PM

Creationists note is that the "special theory" (microevolution) deals with an EXISTING gene pool, but the "general theory" (macroevolution), postulates that NEW MATERIAL is BEING ADDED to that existing gene pool in order to generate new life forms.

Such genetic additions occur all the time, usually through complete, partial, inverted, duplication transcription errors. There is absolutely no question that genetic material can increase as well as decrease. Google any combination of transposition, duplication, fusion, fission, and you'll find more scientific articles demonstrating the processes than sore knees at a Catholic mass.

Posted by: P-W | August 11, 2007 11:52 AM

If the evidence gets too tough, "Kill the messenger."

Right? After all, isn't that what they did to Jesus?

Well, I realize Creationists have their disagreements, and Dr. Baugh is not the only person I have referred to. I also mentioned a link to Dr. Hugh Ross.

Maybe you want to call him a "liar" also?

Dr. Baugh is also the scientific research director for the world's first hyperbaric biosphere, which is a simulation of what he believes are the "original ecospheric conditions of Planet Earth." Yes, scientists do have changing opinions and theories, and Dr. Baugh is no exception (he formerly subscribed to the macroevolutionary hypothesis, but had a change of mind).

I cannot vouch for the link you pointed me to, but I find the claim by that individual rather irresponsible.

But if you are interested in credentials, I noticed I had come across a website entitled, "Dr. Baugh's Questionable Credentials." Interestingly, after I accessed it, it was blank. The page contents had been removed.

Hmmmmmmm. I wonder why?

Since you are such adept Google experts, I am amazed you were unable to locate anything out about Dr. Baugh except that questionable web page. Maybe you are not really interested in Dr. Baugh's credentials?

In case I am wrong, you will find Dr. Baugh's biography at the following link:
http://www.creationevidence.org/bio/bio.html

You will also find Dr. Baugh's Doctoral Dissertation online at this link:

http://www.drcarlbaugh.org/

But are you really even interested in his credentials? I think not.

Posted by: P-W | August 11, 2007 2:55 PM

even Answers in Genesis felt moved to repudiate him.

  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/whatbau.html

All the creationist scientists that we have spoken to regard Mr. Baugh's teaching as a serious embarrassment.

Baugh: Humbug!

Posted by: Owlmirror | August 10, 2007 02:13 AM

In addition to Dr. Baugh's credentials, which I have furnished in blog comment #295 above, I have located on "Answers in Genesis" several actual articles about the Paluxy River, none of them repudiating Dr. Baugh nor the Paluxy River find.

Here is an actual article from "Answers in Genesis" which makes its comments about the Paluxy River. They do not repudiate the Paluxy River find, nor Dr. Baugh. You should read for yourself what is actually stated in its context.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

Below you will find an article referencing the alleged Paluxy River "repudiation" by Creationists, but observe the exact statements by Ken Ham in the last phrase I quote from his article:

"by Ken Ham

"In 1986 a number of leading creationist researchers decided that the evidence of supposedly human and dinosaur footprints, found together at the Paluxy River in Texas, had serious problems. They decided that, pending further research to establish the correct interpretation of the prints, they could no longer be safely used as evidence supporting the fact (based on the biblical account of creation) that man and dinosaur lived at the same time."

"Regardless of what the correct interpretation really is, (Ken Ham)"

The above quotes were taken from the following link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bullet.asp

Ken Ham does take the view that he does not agree with some of Dr. Baugh's "creation evidences" ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp ), but as a young earth creationist Ken Ham also disagrees with some of Dr. Hugh Ross's opinions about a more ancient earth! Just because Creationists disagree among themselves about which evidence they agree or disagree with, in no way impugns the legitimate credentials held by the party they may disagree with over particular "creation evidences!"

In addition, Answers in Genesis did an interview with an Associate of the Paluxy River excavation. But is it a repudiation of the Paluxy River find? You can read the exact words of one of the Associate excavators at Paluxy (Dr. Clifford Wilson) in his own words (about the Paluxy excavations) at "Answers in Genesis" in the interview conducted at the following link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/bullet.asp

He was actually filmed while excavating dinosaur footprints which he had assumed would not be found because of the geological location being excavated. But guess what happened? The above link devulges the information, along with the later "misinformation" which followed his investigation.

Ken Ham, while I respect him, has opinions not everyone will agree with (just as not everyone will agree with Dr. Baugh nor Dr. Hugh Ross). In a philosophical opinion on the best evidence for creation ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/best-proof-of-creation ), Ken Ham lists the Paluxy River footprints as something he personally supposed was not well enough researched. Just because Ken Ham is not familiar enough with the Paluxy River evidence to formulate strong opinions, does not mean there is noone who has researched the evidence! He can have his opinions based on his own lack of research, but others who are more familiar with the evidence are entitled to their own opinions as well.

The closest thing I could find for a "repudiation" of Dr. Baugh on "Answers in Genesis," was a letter from a reader which "Answers in Genesis" reprinted, whom they introduced as a "self-styled 'Professional Biologist'."

It was the "self-styled 'Professional Biologist'" in his write-in letter to "Answers in Genesis" who called Dr. Baugh a man with "dubious credentials" (a compliment "Answers in Genesis" returned to Meiss when they introduced Meiss as a "self-styled 'Professional Biologist'").

A writer for "Answers in Genesis" gave a point by point reply to Meiss, and you will find they did not endorse that opinion of Dr. Baugh which was a slam by the "self-styled 'Professional Biologist'." The actual letter can be found at this link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback/negative_26August2002.asp

Dr. Baugh's legitimate credentials are not in question, even though someone with different views may be misguided enough to insult those credentials out of exasperation (because they do not agree with him).

The website you pointed out ( http://www.talkorigins.org ) does a great job of indexing Creationist views, but it's included anti-Creationist "dogma" also does a superior job of generating "misinformation."

Posted by: Silvermute | August 11, 2007 3:40 PM

P-W, would you mind just fucking off now, there's a good chap. No one cares what you think, if that's the right verb to describe what's going on in your head.